POFO Anything Goes Thread. ((Warning do not enter if you can't handle fire))

Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd
like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our
other members.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you are a member in good standing, then you can navigate to the 2015 Miami Dolphins Media Guide from the navigation bar at the top of the forums. Also, in the sticky section of the main forum, there is a link to vote on your top 50 dolphins players of all time.

You make it sound like there's a legitimate a choice between a candidate who's going to preserve civil liberties and one who won't, when everyone knows only one of two candidates is going to win the election. I can understand wanting to vote your conscience, but if what you're really interested in is the result, why not pick the guy who's better on the issue rather than leave that decision up to others?

You’re right in that both of the major recent candidates don’t offer that distinction, & therein lies the problem. Apparently most people are ignorant of, or don’t care enough that they’re being spied upon to pick a candidate who doesn’t want to spy on them.

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

I think there are plenty of people (not me, of course, but plenty of people), who would argue that we are right now in a state of war, and that states of war create conditions under which the normal rules don't apply. That's why Lincoln is held up as perhaps the greatest of all presidents despite the fact that he suspended habeus corpus. Similarly, any list of great presidents includes Roosevelt, who detained Japanese-Americans, 62% of which were citizens at the time.
I'm surprised internment isn't an issue you're more interested in and know more about, given how important civil liberties are to you. Korematsu vs. United States is a landmark Supreme Court case and was part of established precedent for a long time, and still remains an interesting test case for what will be attempted -- and allowed -- during "wartime."

I’ve read about it; not in great detail but enough to know what happened. Shouldn’t civil liberties be everyone’s primary concern though? What could possibly take precedence over your freedoms? I still wouldn’t agree that because we’re at war with countries on the eastern hemisphere that we need to spy on our own citizens, or that the practice should be accepted or tolerated.

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

Two things:
2.) Alex Jones is a complete ****ing buffoon. Literally one of the most odious bull**** shovelers in this country, and that's saying something. He's garbage. Infowars is garbage. He's a Glenn Beck for the paranoid left, where if he isn't making **** up completely out of thin air is distorting the meaning of things to create the product he's selling: fear. No one as self evidently as smart as you should be paying attention to him or anyone like him.

Wasn’t even aware it was his site, it came up in the search; along with the ‘wired’ article, whom I think is a reputable website.

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

Members of the military are not afforded the same civil liberties as you and me, which they know and is an accepted part of their job. To infer that because that's the way the military monitors it's own personnel that that is the way the military monitors or is going to monitor civilians is ridiculous. Where's the proof?

Rand Paul:

Originally Posted by JamesBW43

From what I understand, Feinstein offered two separate amendments, one strictly dealing with US citizens and one strictly dealing with detention rules in the US, not both together. That is an important distinction because the failure of those amendments does not imply an intent to indefinitely hold US citizens arrested on US soil.

Also on a side note, if it did imply it, that wouldn't necessarily be proof.

“Prior to this legislation, a US citizen accused of being allied with al Qaeda or plotting terrorist activity was considered to have committed a crime. Being accused of a crime, these people had civil rights relating to access to a lawyer and the right to remain silent. Floor statements made by Senators indicate that the legislation is intended to change this so that anyone accused of terrorist activity has not committed a crime, but has committed an act of war. In doing this, they do not have the right to remain silent or access a lawyer. In this manner, they can be held indefinitely without the right end this questioning.

This change in classification is accomplished by classifying the US as a battlefield in the war on terror. The legislation uses the phrase "affirms" when discussing the executive power because the power of the President to arrest and detain enemy combatants on a battlefield is already established. In the case of Jose Padilla and in previous cases during WWII, it was shown that the President can indeed arrest and detain US citizens captured on US soil aiding the enemy in a time of war. However, in the Padilla case, the courts held that since the US is not a battlefield in the war on terror, Padilla must be granted habaes corpus rights and tried as a criminal in the civilian courts. Eventually, Padilla was sentenced to 17 years for his actions.

One section of the legislation states that nothing in the bill is intended to change existing laws with respect to the arrest and detention of US citizens. This has led to a belief that the bill states that it does not apply to US citizens. This is not the case. That section states that current law is not changed by the legislation, but current law already holds that the President already has the power to arrest and indefinitely detain unlawful enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. This legislation merely adds the US homeland as a battlefield and affirms the Presidents authority under that law. Therefore the effect of the law on US citizens is changed without changing the law itself.”

--

“Senator Feinstein of California proposed two amendments to the legislation which both had the purpose of insuring that US citizens captured on US soil would not fall under the provisions of the legisation. The first amendment simply added the word "abroad" to the end of a sentence to ensure that the legislation only applied to those captured abroad. The second simply stated that the provisions did not apply to US citizens captured on US soil.

By the mother****ing way: is Zounds now a mod? I shoot this question at any of the mods in this thread.

That cocksucker was on my ignore list for a very legitimate reason and now im seeing his posts. I have tried to re-put him on ignore and it keeps saying hes an admin or mod. I havent seen his name turn orange. Whats up?

Not that I’m aware of. I’m not sure what’s up with your dilemma though. I’d toss that question in the questions & suggestions forum (with a little bit more flattering language), & see if one of the more tech-savvy admins can help you out.

Not that I’m aware of. I’m not sure what’s up with your dilemma though. I’d toss that question in the questions & suggestions forum (with a little bit more flattering language), & see if one of the more tech-savvy admins can help you out.

Appreciate it, was very random seeing the posts in this part of the forum. Will do when not as intoxicated.

Just two days after being re-elected as Vice President of the United States, Biden will make a guest appearance on NBC's Parks and Recreation. The cameo -- which was filmed this summer when the cast shot scenes in Washington -- will involve an opening segment in which Biden meeting with Amy Poehler's hyperactive, civic-obsessed city councilwoman Leslie Knope.

It will be a big moment for Knope; though Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are her political role models, Biden -- and Biden alone -- comprises her celebrity sex list.
"Vice-President Biden is both Leslie's political hero and her number-one celebrity crush, so meeting him is obviously a huge moment for her," Mike Schur, the show's EP, said in a statement. "We looked at a number of actors to OK the role of 'Vice-President Joe Biden,' and ultimately, Joe Biden himself gave the best audition."

You’re right in that both of the major recent candidates don’t offer that distinction, & therein lies the problem. Apparently most people are ignorant of, or don’t care enough that they’re being spied upon to pick a candidate who doesn’t want to spy on them.

I don't think I made my point very clearly. The major candidates might not offer a huge distinction on civil liberties, but that doesn't mean they don't offer any distinction on civil liberties. If your interest is in the result and you're going to be a single issue voter on civil liberties, why not vote for the guy who's better?

Gary Johnson only got 1% of the vote. That's hardly "sending a message" and as a practical matter means you left the election to be decided by others, where there was a real possibility that a guy worse on civil liberties than the president could have won.

I’ve read about it; not in great detail but enough to know what happened. Shouldn’t civil liberties be everyone’s primary concern though? What could possibly take precedence over your freedoms? I still wouldn’t agree that because we’re at war with countries on the eastern hemisphere that we need to spy on our own citizens, or that the practice should be accepted or tolerated.

I think you're betraying your age here. The vast majority of people are not ideological, they're practical. And the #1 practical concern is and always has been money/the economy. Nothing takes precedence over being able to feed your kids, put a little away for their college education and your retirement, and do it on a budget. As for civil liberties, most people consider themselves law abiding and with nothing to hide. They don't like it when it intrudes on them but it's not a top concern. Any exit poll will tell you that.

Wasn’t even aware it was his site, it came up in the search; along with the ‘wired’ article, whom I think is a reputable website.

Wired is reputable, but the article you linked to is irrelevant. The criteria the military uses to observe/spy on it's own has nothing to do with the NDAA or the Patriot Act.

As for the Rand Paul thing, the profiling of criminal behavior is a long established aspect of law enforcement. Sure, there's nothing inherently sinister about missing fingers. But bomb makers often have missing fingers, which means that if you put it together with other behaviors can be an indication of criminal behavior.

The question is when these behaviors become sufficient for probable cause. That specific line -- whether it's changed and how -- is information I don't have and haven't seen.

As I said earlier, the most important question is whether US soil is considered -- or is going to be considered -- a battlefield. That doesn't seem to be something that's been settled legally, though it appears the attempt is being made to classify it that way, which would allow well established precedent over the essentially unchecked power of the president and military on the battlefield to take hold.

We'll see, I guess. It seems unlikely to me that it would hold, especially considering how close the Padilla ruling was. If strict scrutiny attached, that would make it harder for it to be upheld (a good thing), but the problem with that is that since the "right to privacy" isn't in the Constitution in the explicit way the right to liberty and free speech is (especially relative to electronic communication), the chance that a "rational basis" test (which is easier to pass) would be used is higher.

I don't think I made my point very clearly. The major candidates might not offer a huge distinction on civil liberties, but that doesn't mean they don't offer any distinction on civil liberties. If your interest is in the result and you're going to be a single issue voter on civil liberties, why not vote for the guy who's better?

Gary Johnson only got 1% of the vote. That's hardly "sending a message" and as a practical matter means you left the election to be decided by others, where there was a real possibility that a guy worse on civil liberties than the president could have won.

I’m not questioning your decision of Obama over Romney. I understand from a pragmatic stand-point you felt forced to vote for one of the two major candidates (probably like most other people). However, that doesn’t change what I said in that most people are either ignorant of, or don’t care enough about being spied upon to not vote for certain candidates. I'm sure a lot of people don't necessarily like it, but not enough so to vote for another party, or nominate a candidate in their own party who doesn't hold those aspirations.

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

I think you're betraying your age here. The vast majority of people are not ideological, they're practical. And the #1 practical concern is and always has been money/the economy. Nothing takes precedence over being able to feed your kids, put a little away for their college education and your retirement, and do it on a budget. As for civil liberties, most people consider themselves law abiding and with nothing to hide. They don't like it when it intrudes on them but it's not a top concern. Any exit poll will tell you that.

So dissapointing. We might be a couple years away from changing the star-spangled banner to “O'er the land of the free-ish and the home of the tame.”

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

As for the Rand Paul thing, the profiling of criminal behavior is a long established aspect of law enforcement. Sure, there's nothing inherently sinister about missing fingers. But bomb makers often have missing fingers, which means that if you put it together with other behaviors can be an indication of criminal behavior.
The question is when these behaviors become sufficient for probable cause. That specific line -- whether it's changed and how -- is information I don't have and haven't seen.

You left out things like having 7 days of food, or owning several fire-arms, or owning weather proof amunition for hunting. I’m sure a staggering number of people fall into that category. I have more than 7 days of food in my house as we speak; what’s to say they’re not justified in suspecting you or I of terrorism if that’s one of the criteria? Rand Paul wouldn’t lie, or get away with lying about such criteria on the senate floor.

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

As I said earlier, the most important question is whether US soil is considered -- or is going to be considered -- a battlefield. That doesn't seem to be something that's been settled legally, though it appears the attempt is being made to classify it that way, which would allow well established precedent over the essentially unchecked power of the president and military on the battlefield to take hold.

We'll see, I guess. It seems unlikely to me that it would hold, especially considering how close the Padilla ruling was. If strict scrutiny attached, that would make it harder for it to be upheld (a good thing), but the problem with that is that since the "right to privacy" isn't in the Constitution in the explicit way the right to liberty and free speech is (especially relative to electronic communication), the chance that a "rational basis" test (which is easier to pass) would be used is higher.

It is currently deemed a battle-field. Despite James’ contention, U.S citizens on U.S soil can still be detained indefinitely. You also have far more faith than I that this decision won’t stand.

--

Am I making too much of having our every digital move be tracked & recorded? I don't really think I am. I'm sure most people think of themselves as such a non-factor in the eyes of the government that they aren't overly concerned about such monitoring, but shouldn't this be a matter of principle?

So dissapointing. We might be a couple years away from changing the star-spangled banner to “O'er the land of the free-ish and the home of the tame.”

The tangible reality of being able to afford braces is always going to take precedent over an abstract concept like civil liberties, which is an issue that's really only important to young people, especially college students, and libertarian/survivalist types from the Midwest and West.

You left out things like having 7 days of food, or owning several fire-arms, or owning weather proof amunition for hunting. I’m sure a staggering number of people fall into that category. I have more than 7 days of food in my house as we speak; what’s to say they’re not justified in suspecting you or I of terrorism if that’s one of the criteria? Rand Paul wouldn’t lie, or get away with lying about such criteria on the senate floor.

I'm going to assume this is a joke.

Secondly, as I said, the profiling of criminal behavior is a long established practice. I don't think you're objecting to that, more that the result of profiling in lieu of hard evidence can be used to justify indefinite detention where before it might have only lead to questioning, surveillance or a search warrant.

It is currently deemed a battle-field. Despite James’ contention, U.S citizens on U.S soil can still be detained indefinitely. You also have far more faith than I that this decision won’t stand.

I wouldn't call it faith. It just my read on the law. I'm far from an expert but I do a bit of reading on the subject. I don't think it will stand.

Am I making too much of having our every digital move be tracked & recorded? I don't really think I am. I'm sure most people think of themselves as such a non-factor in the eyes of the government that they aren't overly concerned about such monitoring, but shouldn't this be a matter of principle?

Well, allow me to play devil's advocate. Why do you have an expectation of privacy about information you put out on the internet? Forget how silly it is to expect message board posts or facebook to be private, but why do you think the "privacy agreement" you clicked "yes" on with your email provider is legally binding? They're hosting your emails on their servers, after all. And everyone knows that. And they're not lawyers or doctors or psychiatrists. You have no explicit, legally protected relationship with them, anymore than you do with a friend you swear to secrecy about something.

You're not required to have a digital presence. No one makes you use a cell phone or write emails or use Google specifically or the internet generally. If you're going to venture out into a largely unregulated area, which the internet is, and put information out there of your own free will, why assume the government won't be listening when no law exists to stop them and the fourth amendment only covers your person, house, papers and effects?

@tyler. Nope. Sorry. This is the only board I post at with this name. I'm sort of scared to ask what the other Walrus is like.

Well...hes a poster on the-mainboard. It takes a person with a "special" kind of sense of humor to read and post there. I have laughed at some absolutely unforgivable **** there. I tend to doubt theres a hell to go to, and Im probably fortunate for that after spending a significant amount of time there .